Castle v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWHC 587

Facts

  • The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) uses a tiered system, allowing senior prosecutors to assign some tasks to junior staff for efficient case management.
  • This practice involves distinguishing between routine administrative work and central prosecution functions.
  • In this case, the claimant challenged a situation where a police officer made a charging decision, alleging this breached established procedures requiring prosecutor involvement.
  • The central complaint was that non-prosecutors were permitted to decide charges in complex cases, potentially undermining fairness in prosecution.

Issues

  1. Whether prosecution decisions, specifically application of the Full Code Test, can be delegated to individuals who are not approved prosecutors within the CPS.
  2. Whether allowing non-prosecutors, such as police officers or legal assistants, to make key prosecution decisions compromises the fairness of the process.

Decision

  • The High Court held that central prosecution duties, including the application of the Full Code Test, must be performed solely by approved prosecutors.
  • The decision to charge in complex cases cannot be delegated to non-prosecutors like police officers or legal assistants.
  • The Court affirmed that while routine or support tasks may be assigned to staff, core decisions requiring prosecutorial judgment are non-transferable.
  • The judgment reinforced that only the CPS has the authority to make prosecution decisions, maintaining the integrity of the process.

Legal Principles

  • Delegation within the CPS is permissible for administrative or routine functions but not for core judgments requiring prosecutorial skill and judgment.
  • The Full Code Test, as set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, is a non-delegable duty reserved for approved prosecutors.
  • Proper prosecutorial decision-making upholds public confidence in fair and legally valid prosecutions.
  • The ruling is consistent with previous authority, notably R (on the application of Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] 1 AC 345, affirming the necessity for prosecutors to personally apply critical decision-making standards.

Conclusion

The decision in Castle v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWHC 587 establishes strict boundaries on task delegation within the CPS, confirming that only approved prosecutors may apply the Full Code Test. This preserves the fairness and integrity of prosecution decisions by ensuring critical functions remain with qualified individuals.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal